Fiona Mactaggart: I am glad to welcome the Home Secretary to her new role. I am sure she will fulfil it with the calm good sense that she has already displayed. On the migration review, people like me who were elected on a platform of a firmer, faster and fairer immigration process have been concerned that we deliver on the speed of the process. One of the welcome aspects of the migration review was accelerating the pace of change, speeding up decision-making and making decisions more effective. One of the difficulties that I have had in looking at the speed of decision-making is the fact that the asylum statistics do not report on the end-to-end model—

Liam Byrne: The then Home Secretary provided a full answer to that question at the time. The judgment under ECHR is one that dates back , if my memory serves me correctly, to 1996, and is known as the Chahal judgment. We believe that it prevents us from weighing the right considerations in the balance when we are making those decisions, but that is precisely why the UK Government are seeking to intervene in the Dutch Ramsey case, as we want the correct balance of considerations to be applied when taking such decisions.

Anthony Steen: Before I ask my question, may I tell the Home Secretary what a good job the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) has done on the trafficking of human beings and that the all-party group, as well as many other non-governmental agencies, are grateful to him for that.
	When the Home Secretary goes to Croydon, will she have a word with the Paladin team, which deals with missing children, and ask how it is that 183 children have gone missing from local authorities in the last 18 months? No one seems to know where they are and nobody cares about them. Should not the Home Secretary now take a serious interest in the number of children missing from local authority care who are never found? Should she not be doing something about that?

Hazel Blears: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about recovery efforts following the recent flooding. Above all, I would like to express my deepest sympathy and the sympathy of the whole House to the friends and families of those who have lost their lives. Our thoughts are with them.
	The scale of devastation in the flood-hit areas is enormous. Our current assessment is that 31,200 homes and 7,000 businesses have been affected. Many roads and rail links remain closed. Schools have been damaged. Agriculture has been hit hard and the lives of thousands of people have been disrupted.
	The recovery effort will need support from across central, regional and local government, businesses and voluntary organisations. The Prime Minister and I have agreed that the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey) should take the lead to co-ordinate Government support. He has been working closely with colleagues across Whitehall to do so and I am grateful to him for all the work that he has done so far. He, like my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Environment Secretary, has visited some of the worst affected areas. Indeed, just this morning he met the chief executive officers of key affected local authorities. We will follow that up with a further meeting in Leeds on Wednesday, and other visits from colleagues are planned.
	Media reporting has tended to focus on particular areas such as Hull. But the fact is that a large number of areas and a very large number of people have been affected across the country. We recognise that and our commitment is to mobilise assistance to every community that has been affected.
	I myself have visited communities in Toll Bar in Doncaster, and in Sheffield. Physical damage is the most obvious effect of flooding, but I was struck by its emotional impact, too. I have met people who have been devastated by what has happened: such as the elderly man living alone who had lost not just his possessions, but the phone line that was his link to the outside world. Luckily for him, his daughter was around to help him. I recognise, too, that many others feel angry about what has happened. We must help them to try to pick up the pieces of their lives.
	I have also met some of the brave men and women who have made a real difference at a difficult time. Families and friends have helped each other out. The fire and rescue service, the ambulance service, and the police have done an excellent job. Local authorities have stepped up to the mark and I would like to acknowledge their resourcefulness, and the way that they have prioritised to give most support to the most vulnerable. The voluntary sector has really come into its own.
	In fact, a whole range of organisations has worked together to give people the practical help that they need. I have seen fantastic co-ordination of services, such as the Sheffield humanitarian aid centre which was set up immediately. In Sheffield, the local authority visited 2,000 families in the first 48 hours. I have been impressed by how very testing events have brought out the best in people.
	Communities want to get back to normal as swiftly as possible. Our priority now is to support them in doing so. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will continue to work closely with the local authorities, the fire and rescue services, the insurance industry and other partners, who have already done so much, to ensure that everything possible is being done.
	We are providing vulnerable people with access to crisis loans and community care grants, so that they can afford basic essentials such as fresh clothes and bedding. We are giving people advice so that they can help to keep themselves and their families safe and healthy. We are meeting the Association of British Insurers tomorrow to ensure that hard-hit households and businesses get the support that they need urgently.
	We are working to protect jobs. The regional development agencies have set up a range of funds to support small businesses affected by the floods but there is much more to do. We are now gathering information daily on the scale of the challenges, and the visits will carry on. We know that we need to maintain our efforts and that there are long-term problems that we have to face across a range of areas. Where schools are still closed, councils have swiftly arranged alternatives to ensure that children are educated. The Department for Children, Schools and Families stands ready to work with schools to look at re-profiling some capital expenditure to help get buildings up and running again as soon as possible, and especially by September. While local authorities have undertaken sterling work in assisting with short-term homelessness, many homes are going to be uninhabitable for some time and we know that medium to long-term temporary accommodation will be needed.
	The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is keeping the situation under review and remains in close contact with the National Farmers Union. Transport and infrastructure is an issue; rail links have been affected, some roads are closed and others are seriously undermined. The Department for Transport will assist local authorities once the full scale of the damage has been assessed.
	It is because there is much more to do that, on Saturday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the Government will be providing a rescue fund of £14 million. We are working to get these resources to local authorities as soon as possible. These funds will be in addition to the significant extra resources that local authorities can access through the Bellwin scheme.
	Some £10 million will go direct to local authorities in the flood-hit areas to support the work that they and other organisations are already doing, particularly to help those who have lost everything and need immediate support. We will work closely with the Local Government Association to help local authorities deliver this support quickly and effectively, and with the minimum of bureaucracy. Communities told me that they wanted the money to get to them as quickly as possible. Some £3 million will meet immediate claims from local authorities to help with the cost of repairing roads and bridges, and £1 million will help some of our most vulnerable people to replace essential household items, such as cookers and beds.
	The Prime Minister also announced that we are making changes to the Bellwin scheme, which is designed to help local authorities reclaim costs in emergencies. Instead of having only two months to claim under the scheme, local authorities will now have six months. Instead of being able to claim 85 per cent. of the expenses incurred, local authorities will now be able to claim back the whole costs of eligible expenditure. This will help to ensure that assistance reaches those who need it most. Debate has already started about what more we can do in the long term to reduce the chances of this kind of destruction happening again. This is a real concern among those who have been hardest hit by the flooding.
	It is clear that we need to continue investing in the fire and rescue services, so that they have the equipment they need. The Government have invested £200 million in "new dimension" equipment for the fire and rescue services. I saw the crucial difference that this could make, with new high-volume pumps being used to drain flood water in the midlands and the north.
	We also understand the need to continue investing in flood defences. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced to the House last Monday, Government investment in flood defences will rise from £600 million this year to £800 million in 2010-11. We have strengthened planning policy on development and flood risk; this makes sure that planners and developers work together to locate new developments away from flood risk areas where possible. It also makes sure that any necessary new development in a high-risk area is safe and does not increase flood risk.
	We must learn from the events of recent days. These rains were unprecedented, but it would be wrong to suppose that such an event could never happen again. We must consider what more could be done to prevent this scale of damage in the future. It is right to be thinking for the long term, but we should not let that detract from the urgent business of giving practical help to the people who are suffering now.
	The new measures that I have outlined today are essential, but let me reiterate that they are a first step. In the weeks and months to come, we will continue to work closely with local leaders to help all our communities get back to their normal lives as quickly as possible.

Eric Pickles: First, I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her new appointment and wish her well in her new role. I also thank her for the advance copy of her statement. I join her in paying tribute to the emergency services, councils and voluntary workers who have worked tirelessly over the last fortnight to help the victims of these terrible floods. I also join her in expressing sympathy to the victims of the flood. It will be a long time before those communities can enjoy anything like normal family life. It was evident from watching her on Saturday that she had seen people's distress from visiting those dreadful scenes, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). We should not be in the game of laying blame, but I have several questions regarding the right hon. Lady's statement. Financial support from central Government is essential to ensure that councils are able to rebuild; otherwise, they face cuts in local services or hikes in council taxes due to the cost of reconstruction. In Saturday's statement, the Department said that the Bellwin scheme reforms would not be permanent. Why is that? In 2001, its predecessor Department warned that the "main live issue" with Bellwin was
	"local authority expenditure on flood protection and response to flooding".
	Is there not a case for a complete review of the Bellwin scheme, including the capital costs of flooding, rather than using these short-term fixes? Councils such as Herefordshire and Carlisle have previously introduced local council tax discounts for the victims of flooding. Will the right hon. Lady encourage councils to adopt such measures? Can such expenditure by flood-hit councils be claimed back under Bellwin?
	Does the right hon. Lady agree that the public are entitled to have the best information available on flood risk? The National Audit Office has warned that fewer than half the country's high-risk flood defences are at "target condition". Will she place in the Library a list of the defences that are below target condition? Do not residents deserve more information not just about coastal and river flooding, but about urban drainage problems and our creaking sewerage system?
	If the right hon. Lady believes in openness, will she speak to the Environment Agency about its clampdown on websites such as OnOneMap, which seeks to make the agency's public flood map data more accessible to the public? Insurers are calling for full access to the agency's national flood and coastal defence database. Should not both the public and insurers be given free access to that data, provided that insurers continue to insure at-risk properties?
	The Government are planning extensive development on the Thames Gateway, much of which is flood plain. What plans does the right hon. Lady have to revise building regulations to ensure that new homes are built in a way that will minimise damage if there is flooding? What funding mechanisms will be used to ensure that the new developments are constructed with robust flood defences? What steps are being taken to encourage the use of natural wetlands and the restoration of natural flood plains to prevent upstream flooding?
	The Secretary of State says that the rains were unprecedented, but we have witnessed a succession of major floods in recent years. The Government created the regional resilience team and regional civil contingencies committees to improve co-ordination of emergency responses. What role have they played in tackling recent flooding, and what lessons can be learned to improve their responses to other disruptive civil emergencies?
	The Chief Fire Officers Association has criticised the "institutional confusion" among the myriad public sector agencies responsible for tackling flooding incidents and has called for a single lead agency to co-ordinate responses, but was that recommendation not made three years ago after the Boscastle and Carlisle floods? Will the right hon. Lady place in the Library a copy of the conclusions of Exercise Trident, the flood contingency planning exercise of 2004, so that we can judge what advice was given? Will she confirm that the £14 million that the Chancellor announced is to replace last year's £14 million cut in the budget? Are new moneys to be made available?
	If the Minister is not to come to the Dispatch Box with ever-increasing frequency, we need to understand why our infrastructure could not cope with changes in the weather. We need to learn the lessons and to improve co-ordination. Above all, we need to know who is in charge.

John Prescott: As a Back Bencher, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I echo the praise of the people of Hull for the emergency services, the voluntary services and the local authority workers—they all worked tremendously hard. The floods damaged more than 5,000 houses in Hull, closed many schools—4,000 children were looking for a school—and caused great damage. Tragically, a man was killed in the process of trying to stop the floods and help a neighbour. In those circumstances, it is easy to understand why the people of Hull think that they are the worst affected on this occasion.
	Does my right hon. Friend recognise that in the past seven years, we have had floods in Carlisle, York, and Boscastle, and now we have floods in the Yorkshire area? These events are not just a matter of exceptional weather, although of course that is part of it. They are happening much more frequently. We had better begin to recognise that we have fundamentally to review our whole water management system. In particular, I draw her attention to the drains and sewage that have contaminated so many houses and schools. Cleaning those buildings will take a long time—even before the repairs start. No doubt we will determine the long-term consequences. In view of the fact that the Government have committed some money for immediate application, will my right hon. Friend ensure that that is considered not only by her Department, but by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, so that we can get youngsters back to school and people back into their houses? We have to do that. Will she send some officials to Hull to discuss how we can use that money immediately? I thank her for all her efforts, and particularly for agreeing a few days after the floods to send a Minister to Hull.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words of welcome. I have no doubt that Greater Manchester will figure significantly in our discussions. He asked me to make sure that progress is tracked carefully; I entirely agree that we need to make sure that we keep our focus on the events that occurred.
	I am particularly pleased that our regional Ministers will also be playing a role, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber, who has been extremely involved in taking these issues up in recent days.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the matter of support to businesses, which is important. I visited Meadowhall, the shopping centre in Sheffield, which had been quite badly affected by the flooding, and that was particularly true of the retail businesses. Yorkshire Forward has set up a scheme and has provided £1 million to help small businesses. Advantage West Midlands is looking at something similar, and there is something similar in the east midlands as well. The regional development agencies will therefore help businesses with their immediate costs.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Bellwin threshold, which is 0.2 per cent. of local authority budgets, will still be in place. We have extended the grant to cover 100 per cent. of costs, which is a significant expansion, but the threshold will still be in place. He asked about the capacity of the insurance industry, particularly in relation to assessors. The Association of British Insurers indicates that the process of getting assessors in is well under way. Certainly, on my visits, I found some variation in the responses of different insurance companies. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for local government, and the relevant Ministers from the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and, I hope, from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform are meeting the insurance industry tomorrow, so I hope that the House appreciates how seriously we are taking the issue of insurance to make sure that claims are dealt with speedily and fairly and that there is sufficient capacity to get on with things, because that is a top priority for members of the public. The hon. Gentleman mentioned builders, and we need to be careful that reputable builders are involved in the restoration work.
	I mentioned the new planning guidance, PPS25, and we need to make sure that it operates properly, that we manage the risk of building on the floodplain and, where there is development, that it is appropriate to the area. We will continue to keep a close eye on that. The £800 million for flood prevention is to be made available for the next comprehensive spending review period. I am not in a position, and nor is my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary, to give the profiling of that expenditure as yet, but I take note of the hon. Gentleman's request that it kick in as soon as practicable to meet requirements.

Paul Holmes: I thank the Minister for her statement, and I thank her colleague the Minister responsible for local government for visiting my constituency last Friday afternoon to see the damage. Three rivers flooded in Chesterfield—the Rother, the Hipper and the Whitting. Between them, they closed three of the six main roads into town, and affected 60 businesses and up to 1,000 houses. That they flooded is no surprise, because they have a track record going back well over a century. Prevention, of course, is better than cure and cleaning up afterwards. The defensive works on the River Rother are planned to start in 2011 and the feasibility study for the River Hipper is drawn up but with no date attached to it. Will the Minister assure me that she will be lobbying her colleagues in Government to make sure that money for these planned preventive works are brought forward, otherwise we will be back in a few years, going through the same story?

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, in representing his rural communities, always ensures that they are not left out and are at the centre of concerns. He makes an important point. People in rural communities can often feel more isolated and, particularly where there is a settlement of only a few houses, the effects can be devastating. That is why I said earlier that it is important to ensure that the Government keep a long-term focus on these issues. When I went up to Carlisle after the flooding there, I found that some people's mental health problems had lasted for a significant period, so help from health and social services was important, as well as dealing with physical flood defences. I will certainly ensure that rural areas remain a focus of our concern.

Hazel Blears: The whole House will want to extend its condolences to Mr. Barnett's family about the terrible tragedy that happened. I think that I have already said that the emergency services that attended on that day found themselves in an especially harrowing situation. There will be a coroner's inquest, which will look at the circumstances, and it would be inappropriate to jump to any conclusions about what happened.
	The hon. Gentleman says that we need better co-ordination. My experience has been that the police, the fire services, the ambulance, the voluntary sector and business support organisations have come together as a result of recent events in a tremendous way. When he tries to say that they have not responded, he makes an unfair criticism. We have a system in this country of proper civil contingency preparation and we can be proud of it.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that the climatic conditions are now the norm. Most organisations said that the weather was unprecedented: the amount of rain that fell in such a short time is the greatest since records began. That does not mean that it will not happen again—we must be prepared in future; prevention is better than cure—but the hon. Gentleman's failure to recognise that the circumstances are pretty unique does not reflect reality.

Hazel Blears: Yes, the drainage problem is important. I have no doubt that increasing urbanisation has impacts on our planning framework, which is why we have been looking at PPS25, to try to ensure that we properly manage the risks of building on floodplains and of the kind of developments that are taking place. It is one of the issues that we can pursue. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for local government is leading a group of Ministers across Government to ensure that we look at the issues. What is also important is that we learn the lessons from such events, and we absolutely mean to do that, so that we can best inform our policy for the future.

Ian Taylor: I am intervening because I was the Science Minister who took the decision that we should change the status of the National Physical Laboratory and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, and I am well aware that that moved the scientific echelon of the civil service out of the civil service. I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and I hope that the Minister will be supportive of the idea that we should re-establish the science and technology aspect of the civil service.

Phil Willis: This is not an easy area and the Committee is not suggesting that. Our conclusion was that it is important to communicate risk in a way that people can understand, and we compared different types of risk in that way. The problem that the Government and all political parties have is the compensation and litigation culture that has come into this area. Small risks are now built up into major things; for instance, one cannot play conkers—a use for horse chestnuts, I say to the Minister—within school grounds because of the risk. We need to get that into balance.
	The Government said in response to our report that they would have discussions with the media to try to maximise public understanding. I would be grateful if the Minister explained what that meant and what the Government have done in this area. The Government also told us that it was establishing an expert resource centre for public dialogue on science and innovation to help all parts of Government to enable public debate on science and technology-related topics. As far as we are aware, this is still just a Government plan. If so, when will it become a reality?
	Finally, may I return to the impact that the machinery of Government changes will have on the scientific advisory system within Government? The chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, was situated within the DTI as head of the Office of Science and Innovation. He therefore had a dual role combining a cross-departmental co-ordination and advisory function with the post of head of the OSI. We were concerned that these roles did not sit comfortably alongside one another and that the GCSA was unlikely to have time to develop both his cross-departmental role and his administrative functions within the OSI. It seems that these roles have been reviewed and that the changes are much more far-reaching than we suggested. We suggested that the GCSA should have a desk in the Cabinet Office and a seat in the Treasury. For him to sit with the Government's chief economic adviser, who also has a seat in the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, would be a strong bolstering of the independence of the Department.
	Obviously, the DTI has been split, and what was the OSI has been moved into the new Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills. We understand that there will be a new office for the Government's chief scientific officer within that Department and that the OSI will cease to exist. Will the Minister clarify what the remit of that office will be? Will the chief scientific officer focus solely on trans-departmental scientific advice, or will he continue to have administrative responsibilities within the Department? The whole issue of scientific advice is important, and it should be at the heart not only of the new DIUS but the whole Government. I welcome the Government's response to our report.

Ian Gibson: I congratulate the Minister of State, Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson), on his new appointment, and wish him luck in the battles ahead. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), as Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, on building on the work of the past eight years in this area. He has taken it on rather well.
	Before we discuss scientific advice, we must address the question of whether science is important. That battle has still to be won, not only in this country, but in large sectors of the rest of the world. If we cannot win that battle, we can give all the advice we want, but no one will listen to it or want it. Most hon. Members present can probably cite many occasions on which science has contributed to the betterment of the world or of health. For example, there is a lot of hyperbole around the science of stem cell research at the moment, but there are also great hopes and wishes that something will come out of the research. The evidence might not always be there, but people have a right to try to obtain it to improve conditions for people on this planet.
	I confess that I am a member of the UK Stem Cell Foundation, which was set up by Sir Richard Sykes and various other people, such as Jon Moulton, for whom the Treasury Committee does not have much time at present. The foundation can raise £90 million almost overnight from its connections, and it wants to make a connection with the Medical Research Council to ensure that work is done in this country, and goes all the way from blue-skies thinking to product formation in this country, so that we do not see, for example, antibodies being developed in the States. That culture is beginning to take off.
	There are problems with academics and researchers in general. Having been one myself, and still knowing many, I know, as other hon. Members present might confirm, that there is a great latent suspicion regarding the media and the communication of science. I have scars on my back from my frequent appearances on Radio Norfolk as a science adviser. I once tried to explain how a microwave oven works, and when I went back to the lab I was pulled apart by people who not only knew more about it than I did, but said that trying to explain a difficult concept to the public was simply a waste of time. That problem still exists. When I see my friends at meetings, as I did this weekend, they say things like, "The public will never understand; it's much too complex." We still have that battle to fight in this country.

Ian Gibson: I thank the hon. Lady. That is another truism. Many people are put under pressure subtly or quite openly. Most hon. Members find it difficult to say no to someone who wants to talk to them about a problem, such as a drug that they cannot get commercialised or get approved by NICE. That makes life difficult for us. To advice us, we need a grouping that is not subjected to such pressure. I do not know whether that exists anywhere in the world, but we ought to try to achieve it.
	The first hour of the meeting that I attended at NICE was spent with people talking about their commercial interests. Either the laboratory had been funded by the company that wanted the drug to be approved, or some social benefit had been offered, such as a trip to Florida. It is hard to resist that, even if one feels neutral. In the decision-making arena, such pressure can influence the way one considers the evidence. I hold my hand up and say that sometimes I do not speak out when I should because I feel some empathy with the people presenting the evidence. It is disgraceful, and having been a boy scout, I should know better.
	NICE is an organisation that is finding its way forward to assess the evidence and to try and restore confidence in certain areas in medicine. If any group that scrutinises medical developments does not get it right, that damages the research and the patients. Scientific endeavour generally gets a bad name, and public funding with public support can quickly disappear. I was amazed how quickly the support for GM disappeared. We lost the argument day by day, until there was little left to fight for, although I remember slanging matches with friends of mine in this place who were against it from the beginning.
	Evidence that comes forward often raises expectations. Scientists should be careful about that. The hyperbole that is sometimes associated with certain types of science gives rise to the kind of scary stories that discredit science. There may initially be disagreements, but ultimately there will be agreement about issues on which the evidence is not solid. Somehow that gets in through the media or the public domain, and is believed. A friend of mine, Ben Goldacre, writes a column in  The Guardian every Saturday exposing that kind of phoney science, especially in the food industry, and some of its claims.
	Many people would feel let down if there were too many stories like that. Science is not precious, but we must fight to maintain its independence and integrity. The slanging matches that go on when topics are discussed must take place in the open. The public must know that there is an argument, as well as a consensual view.
	Controversial areas such as stem cells need to prosper, but only in an environment where the scientists are self-critical. Science is not just about certainty; it is also about uncertainty. I mentioned the case of Krebs saying, "I don't know." I have never met a scientist—this may be a parallel with scientists' so-called arrogance—who could be absolutely sure that they had done every experiment and every control necessary to achieve certainty. That is what is exciting in schools—teaching young people to be critical, to do experiments, to think things through and to ask questions, and giving them the opportunity to develop some understanding and some interest in science.
	Universities have a long way to go in how they teach science. Some of what is taught there is boring, rather than radical. I question whether the PhD is taught properly now, and whether post-doctoral fellowships are the way to do science, not necessarily because they are one-year or three-year contracts, but because in many quarters post-doctoral students are still beholden to the boss of the laboratory, who gets all the credit and the kudos from research exercises, whereas a vast amount of the work that is done in this country is done by postgraduate and post-doctoral students. We should remember that we need them, although the administrative work is done by the senior member of the team. In schools and in universities, there is so much more to do to advance a subject that is very exciting.
	We do science because we want to make life better for people and to have information that we can put into the system, not just in health but in other fields too. It is not always possible to devise good experiments, but we should give people the right to do that, and we should finance them to allow it to happen.

Ian Taylor: I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate. I start by congratulating the Science and Technology Committee, of which I used to be a member, on its excellent work in producing the report. A lot of effort and consideration has gone into it, and it is a valuable contribution to our debate.
	I welcome the Minister to his new position. In my view, it is the best job in Government, although he does not have quite as much of it as I will recommend he should have had. Nevertheless, as Minister with responsibility for science, he will find dealing with these subjects very stimulating.
	Before the Minister gets too excited by his promotion, let me give him a warning. During my period as Science and Technology Minister, the BSE crisis was suddenly launched upon us. On the very day that the information had been revealed, there was an evening reception at Downing street. The Prime Minister was saying nice things in welcoming various Ministers until he got to me, when he said, "Oh yes, you're the Science Minister, aren't you? Look what a mess you've made of this." The Minister must remember that he will get the blame for crises in science that other Ministers do not want to know about. One of the problems is that although science is at the heart of decisions in virtually every Department, most Ministers are either ignorant of, or do not wish to know about, the implications of science and evidence-based decision making. That is one of the subjects addressed in the report.
	During the past year, I have been producing for my party a report on science, technology, engineering and mathematics. It is remarkable just how buoyant those subjects are in our universities. I want to make the Minister understand, in his new departmental role, that it was a mistake to put science in just with the universities, which are much broader institutions that do not just concentrate on science. I hope that he has more than his fair share of debates within the Department and that he influences other Departments, particularly the Treasury. It is critical to the future of this country that we not only do excellent science and punch above our weight in publications and citations but capture the benefits of that science as they emerge.
	One difficulty is that although we as a country are brilliant at providing ideas for the rest of the world, producing 9 per cent. of publications and an even bigger percentage of citations from a very much smaller percentage of population, other countries capture those ideas. The other day, I heard that one of the key people in the development of the new Apple iPhone was at Northumbria university—a Brit—but the innovation has been captured in the United States of America. As we begin to compete in this world, even more so at the knowledge-based industry level, we will have to capture more of the ideas that come out of our science base. To put it crudely, we need to have the same esteem for engineers as we have for scientists, because engineers capture the discoveries of scientists and turn them into applications.
	My plea to the Minister is that he should not get corralled within the Department. When I was Science and Technology Minister, I claimed and exercised trans-departmental responsibility mainly because I had the full backing of the then Deputy Prime Minister. If the Minister is to make science count in Government, he will need an ally in Cabinet Committees.
	Other speakers have already mentioned the fact that some key decisions that we have to take in the years to come are very science-oriented. There are disadvantages to that. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) mentioned the importance of considering the evidence on which a decision is based. The difficulty is that politicians often have to make quick decisions without the evidence. The BSE case was a good example. It was difficult to get scientists to give evidence to the politicians—one of whom was me—who wanted to make speeches in the House of Commons in favour of this country being a leader in stem cell science. We must understand that there are pressures on politicians to which scientists have to respond, rather than just saying, "We will do it in our own time and the evidence will eventually emerge."
	Another difficulty in the relationship between scientists and politicians is what I might call the absolute statement. When in trouble, a politician is desperate to say, "I'll do what the scientists tell me." It is very rare that scientists will tell a Minister exactly what he should make a judgment on.

Ian Pearson: The programme is going on at the moment; it will be fully evaluated, and no doubt all the findings will be published.
	I want to make a point about the Sciencewise strategy group, chaired by Professor Kathy Sykes from Bristol university, which is providing advice on the objectives and scope of the new expert resource centre. We expect to have completed its specification in the autumn. I would find it helpful if members of the Select Committee wanted to have a dialogue with my officials, and perhaps with Kathy Sykes and some of the others who are advising us. Again, we want to capture and disseminate best practice, and I am sure that we can learn a lot from members of the Select Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) talked of two battles: that of making the importance of science more readily apparent to the British public and that of communications. I agree with him that there are lessons to be learnt from some of the debates, on issues such as stem cell research and GM, where different public perceptions are all too clear. He talked about bio-entrepreneurs and gave the good example of a business spinning out and then being bought out by a major pharmaceutical company. Of course, that is one of the routes by which we can commercialise the new ideas that we need to encourage in our science base and ensure that they are not lost—a point made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor).
	I agree with my hon. Friend about the interaction between academics. Often, cross-disciplinary interaction can provide the stimulus to achieve breakthroughs in knowledge. Some of the interaction that we have at ministerial level, however, just seems to me to be like having meetings, and getting the balance right will be crucial.
	My hon. Friend also made a number of points that touch on the ethics of research, its transparency, the potential for commercial interests to get in the way, intellectual property and how ideas can be transmitted. In response, I should like to say that throughout history there have been examples of people jealously guarding their ideas rather than transmitting them to the public, but there is a real issue and it should be the Government's role not only to be a staunch defender of intellectual property where it has been validly demonstrated, but to transmit new ideas openly across boundaries, across disciplines and across borders, and getting that balance right is important.
	I agree with my hon. Friend about the important role that Parliament has played in developing the UK's approach to stem cell research, which has allowed us to play a leading role in that critical area. That is a good example of public debate.
	I thank the hon. Member for Esher and Walton for his kind words and his sagacious advice as a distinguished former science Minister. He raised a number of points about boundaries between the new DIUS and the two other new Departments, and other Departments and the Treasury. I assure him that I will not get corralled in DIUS. I fully agree that science policy needs to go right across Government. He also made some valid points about procurement; that is another important area in which I want to play a role as the Minister with responsibility for science. He also raised the issue of how we can improve scientific literacy. I agree that that is an important area, but I want to highlight the fact that we also need to improve financial literacy and literacy in general. One of the great strengths of the new Department is that it will bring the skills agenda together with the innovation agenda, to produce benefits for all.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) talked at some length about the lack of scientific evidence behind some EU legislation, particularly with regard to the physical agents directive. I do not want to respond in great detail, but I agree about the importance of ensuring that the policy-making process in Brussels also takes full account of the scientific evidence, which has not always been the case in the past. From my experience as a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I am aware of examples where I do not think that decisions are being taken that fully recognise the scientific evidence. My hon. Friend also talked about the role of departmental scientific advisers, and I hope that what I have said about the importance that the Government attach to the role will provide him with some reassurance.
	My hon. Friend also said that he thought that the civil service preferred generalists to specialists. I have heard that view expressed by others, but it certainly was not my experience when I was Minister for Trade in the Department of Trade and Industry and we wanted real specialists. Nor was it my experience when I was Minister for Climate Change and the Environment in DEFRA, where, again, the role of specialists in policy making was fully recognised. As I mentioned, DEFRA's science advisory council plays an important role and works very well.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon talked about the nature of scientific inquiry and evidence, and the dangers of pseudo-science. I agree with what he had to say on those subjects. He raised the issue of double counting and referred to the fact that scientists, by their very nature, sometimes express degrees of caution, whereas other people responding to consultations perhaps do not feel quite so constrained. It is the role of Government to make mature judgments based on the evidence that we receive in consultation exercises. We have to weigh the various elements in the balance, looking at the scientific evidence and public opinion.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of freedom of information and whether the Data Protection Act might prevent us from publishing full details of the evidence behind policy decisions. As Minister with responsibility for science, I intend to ensure that I publish in full the reasoning behind all key decisions and publish as much information as possible, without infringing people's rights or the legislation. There should be a general presumption of openness and transparency in all that we do. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the precautionary principle, which I agree is often misunderstood by many people. I want to come back to that, and perhaps we will want to discuss it in more detail on another occasion.
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) is to be congratulated on his change of role. I look forward to continuing to joust with him, just as we jousted with each other from time to time across the Chamber when he was the Opposition spokesman on DEFRA. He summarised a number of contributions that were made during the debate. I take full account of what he has to say about science, the fishing industry and the importance of evidence-based policy making. Again, getting the right balance between the science—where there is some uncertainty and a level of dispute, as he well knows, in the fisheries industry—and mature policy judgments is what it is all about.
	The hon. Gentleman made a number of comments about Lord Sainsbury. I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that David Sainsbury completely absented himself from all policy decisions in Government on the issue of GM. Indeed, I shall go further and say that Lord Sainsbury is widely recognised by all who know him as having been an excellent Science Minister. He played a leading role in the development of the 10-year science and innovation framework for the United Kingdom and was instrumental in ensuring that the science budget grew massively over the past 10 years. I do not believe that anyone who has met him or talked to him would ever think that he would be influenced by ulterior motives.
	When the Science and Technology Committee published its report "Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making" in November 2006, it included 69 recommendations. At the time, the Government welcomed its conclusions and recommendations, and that remains the case today. There is still more to be done. We are not complacent and we want to do more to ensure that science is managed and used to best effect by Government. We have made a great deal of progress over the past 10 years, and we have made further progress since the Committee published its report last year. We are determined to continue making progress. As a Government we remain firmly committed to continuing to improve our use of scientific advice, our management of risk and our use of evidence to support policy. I look forward to the continuing scrutiny of how we do that by hon. Members.
	 Question deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4 ) (Consideration of estimates ).

Michael Jack: In his normal perceptive way, the hon. Gentleman picks up on a number of themes of the report that I shall discuss in a moment. The question of whether Europe's current expenditure on agriculture and, to a degree, its rural policy is value for money is a central issue for discussion. As agricultural policy moves from being a question of subsidising production to a question of paying for environmental goods and the development of a rural policy for new and existing member states, challenging new subjects of debate arise.
	One point that the report touches on is on what exactly the money should be spent. For example, in the context of environmental goods, what exactly do the public want purchased in their name? In our report on the CAP and in previous reports, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee touched on that very point and asked the Government to try to evaluate and have a debate on the matter, to make certain that the use of public moneys is properly targeted. That goes back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins): the public who are effectively paying for such schemes through their taxes must feel that they are getting some value for money. Without doubt, the public enjoy the countryside and good quality food, but at the moment they do not have much of a say about the use to which public funds are put.

David Taylor: One of the most useful initiatives taken when my noble Friend took over as Minister with responsibility for farmers has been his surgeries. Many hon. Members have used them; they are an effective innovation, on which we congratulate him. Some problems continue: the RPA is still working with poor-quality data, there are genuine quality control problems at the processing end, and there is a lack of technical knowledge in the RPA of how the SPS works.
	The Government must ensure that the RPA is adequately resourced. We have experienced doing things down to a price, not up to a standard. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams)—as I shall continue to call him—knows that one of the early impressions that we gained from what we saw at Reading was that the place was full of contractors and outsourced staff, who were low-paid and poorly trained. The people who knew about the processes were demoralised by the large-scale redundancies that they had to endure. Even though the RPA would cost even more in the short term, money spent on that would be money well spent in the medium and long term. Of course, 20,000 or so 2005 claims need reviewing as soon as possible.
	My heart sank when I realised the RPA was to carry out an across-the-board update of its rural land register. Given all the problems that it experienced in the early months of mapping, and the appalling delivery of RLR maps in 2004, I am not certain that all that will not be repeated if the SPS system does not reach a stable state. The remapping must be done with great caution, but I advise, from a technical point of view, that it should be delayed into the medium term, until the SPS system, which it underpins, is significantly more stable.
	I hope that everything will be done in the short term for the 2007 scheme payments. Lord Rooker said that the objective was to pay 75 per cent. by the end of March 2008. We should go further and faster. I believe—and the NFU agrees—that we should pay at least 80 per cent. of the claims by the end of the year. That is a reasonable target. The system is becoming more effective and the staff are becoming more familiar with it. Let us not allow change to disrupt that. We should accelerate the payments so that the 120,000 farmers and their families throughout the country do not have to endure again what happened from early 2006 to mid 2007.

Richard Bacon: My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) and I have just listened to the former chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency, Johnston McNeil, giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, which is one of the reasons we were unable to attend the debate earlier. On the question of where the Secretary of State was, I am pretty sure that she was steering well clear. On the hon. Gentleman's earlier point about the relationships between DEFRA, the agency and Accenture, does he not find it strange, as I do, that there were two senior responsible owners, against the advice of the RPA, when the whole idea of having a senior responsible owner for a project is that there should be one person who is specifically accountable? It was as though the Department had tried to drive a coach and horses through the notion of having a senior responsible owner by having one for policy and one for implementation, thereby almost creating part of the problem.

Roger Williams: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There seemed to be a lack of accountability and clarity about who was responsible for carrying the project forward.
	This has been a tragic event for the farming community. The farming business has lost about £20 million but, more importantly, it has lost what little confidence it had in DEFRA. If agriculture is to be successful in future, the Department responsible for it and the business itself must find a better way to combine and work together.
	I want to ask the Minister a question along the same lines as that posed by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire. Does he have any plans to bring forward the payments during the payment window? If not, English farmers will simply look at other countries and the other devolved nations in the United Kingdom and see themselves as second best, because they do not get the same service as others do.
	I would also like to ask the Minister a question about inspections. In the implementation of the single payment scheme, inspections are important in ensuring that cross-compliance is observed by the applicants, but they are often not well planned. There is frequent duplication, and they place huge regulatory burdens on farming businesses. Will the Minister impress upon DEFRA, the Rural Payments Agency and the Environment Agency the need to co-ordinate their inspection plans more closely, to ensure that, when two inspections can be carried out at the same time, that happens, so that duplication does not occur and farmers feel that the inspections are being carried out with a light but sound touch?
	The Government's report, "Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy", was brought out in what seemed to be rather a rush during the UK's presidency of the European Union. In order to achieve a budget agreement, people were talking in fairly strong terms about reform of the CAP, but when the Prime Minister went to look in the cupboard, there was no work on the shelf and there was no report. This document has the hallmark of work that has been done fairly rapidly and without the necessary research.
	The common agricultural policy has evolved over the years from the time of the treaty of Rome, when it was built on intervention, through the MacSharry reforms that brought in quotas for breeding animals and for payments for particular crops. I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members here today will agree that in 2003, under the cloak of a mid-term review, we saw the fundamental implementation of the single farm payment, along with the decoupling. During that period, there have also been reductions in the export subsidies that do so much to distort world trade and such great harm to third-world countries. Export subsidies should be eliminated by 2013. It was the agreement between France and Germany that the common agricultural budget should be maintained to 2013 that led to the agreement on the single farm payment.
	The document produced by DEFRA and the Treasury lacks the political nous that should have been present for it to be taken through the European Union. As the right hon. Member for Fylde said, it seems extremely difficult to get this kind of reform through the agriculture Ministries in France and Germany. Perhaps President Sarkozy will have a different frame of mind from that of President Chirac. I think President Chirac was the only one who understood the European agricultural policy, and that was probably because he wrote it.
	The movement of funds from pillar one to pillar two is broadly agreed by all hon. Members.

James Paice: Not a lot more.
	May I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), to his first Front-Bench post? I know that he has been a Whip, but this is his first ministerial position. If this is his first outing as Lord Rooker's spokesman on Earth, we look forward to further discussions.
	I congratulate the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on producing two excellent reports. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) said, it is a great shame that the Government's responses, which I understand have been forwarded to the Committee, were not produced in time for the Committee to publish them. As a result, the House cannot consider the responses tonight. It would be wrong of me to seek to repeat the all the points made by the many hon. Members of all parties who have spoken. It is fascinating that all the Government Back Benchers who spoke on the report on the Rural Payments Agency totally endorsed the report's criticism. As has been said, that criticism is extremely trenchant. When a Select Committee, acting unanimously, uses adjectives of the sort found in the report, it demonstrates how serious the situation is.
	The hon. Member for South Derbyshire, using his professional knowledge, explained to the House where many things went wrong in the management of the change, and the management of the delivery of the single payment system. The problems with the SPS started with the mid-term review. I want to make it clear that the Opposition supported the principles behind the changes, and the principle of decoupling support from production. Our only criticism is that the changes did not go far enough. I will return to that point when I move on to discuss the second report.
	We also supported the later decision to adopt a dynamic hybrid. Some of the reasons that the Government gave for the decision were right: it is difficult to justify paying people in 2012 for what they did 10 years earlier, and it will be easier to move to whatever happens post-2012 if such a change is made. However, as the report rightly says, the dynamic hybrid was apparently adopted in year 1, after the Government made the decision to start the process. As several Members have said, many of the problems could have been alleviated if we had delayed the start. I am convinced that that is where the main problems began.
	As we have heard, the programme involved the extension of the scheme to massive areas of land and to many more farmers, but there was no recognition of the impact. That resulted in 48,000 extra holdings, and 360,000 extra parcels of land having to be registered. It is an odd way of weaning an industry off subsidy suddenly to give the subsidy to people who did not have it before, but that seems to be the policy that was adopted. As we have heard, the Government did not adopt the de minimis figure of €100, although that would have taken out 14,000 claimants. Indeed, I would have supported a much higher de minimis figure. As we heard, two months later, it was decided—albeit as a result of pressure—that a third region would be added. That came on top of everything else.
	Many issues remained unresolved. Those of us who were watching events or were involved at the time were conscious of discussions on what comprised an orchard, and on fruit, vegetable and potato permits and to whom they belonged. All those problems continued while the RPA was allegedly trying to set up the necessary systems. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, on 19 January 2005, the RPA announced that payments would be delayed. It is interesting to note that the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), said a year later that
	"In 2004—05, the RPA met all its key performance targets".—[ Official Report, 2 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 452.]
	As that covered the period when the RPA said that payments would be delayed, it raises the question what performance targets it had apparently met.
	During 2005 it became increasingly clear what the problems were—the wrong maps sent to the wrong farms. Sometimes even maps from the wrong counties were sent to farmers. As others have said, fields were added to a farm that had been missed off one set of maps, and other fields were missing from the next set of maps. There was chaos, yet according to the public face of Government everything was going well. Ministers, as we have heard, especially Lord Bach, constantly criticised those of us who said that there were problems. He said that we were causing
	"unfounded alarm and uncertainty in the farming community".
	As early as that same day, 19 January 2005, in the House I called for interim payments. Later that year on 9 June the then Secretary of State said that she was not ruling them out. We know the rest. The Government did not make the decision to introduce interim payments until April 2006, nearly five months into the payment window. Clearly, there were serious problems.
	I have a number of questions for the Minister about the present, but before I come to those, I want to make one point. The fundamental cause of the problems, aside from the difficulties of managing change, was that no Minister understood the industry that they were dealing with, nor, it seems, did any of the civil servants who were making decisions or giving advice to Ministers. No one seemed to realise the complexity of the dynamic hybrid and that it would take much more time. As the Secretary of State said repeatedly, they underestimated the number of new claims and the amount of land.
	Given the definition of a farmer that we heard from the Minister a few minutes ago, one wonders why those in DEFRA did not seem to understand how many thousands of people there were out there who, like the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), own a few acres of England and might therefore register and claim. It is not just people who own 5 acres. In my constituency, in the horseracing sector, all the stud farms suddenly became eligible.
	When all the problems were reported, no Minister seemed to have the gumption to go out and ask searching questions about why they were getting all those reports, or to go out to farms to look at the forms that farmers were being asked to fill in, and to see the maps that were being sent round and the chaos caused by inaccurate mapping. The Department was full of urban Ministers with no idea of the industry that they were dealing with. The situation was summed up on 2 February 2006 when, in an oral question, I said that the scheme was complicated, and the Secretary of State replied:
	"The hon. Gentleman says that it is a complicated scheme, but that is misconceived."—[ Official Report, 2 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 454.]
	I fear that she did not grasp the complexity of what she was doing.
	The final insult to the industry was that that Secretary of State, who was ultimately responsible for the chaos and the shambles, was promoted to Foreign Secretary. As somebody might have said, when she had done her worst, the caravan moved on.
	It is worth pointing out, as other hon. Members have, that Germany also adopted a dynamic hybrid scheme and did not face similar problems, which proves that the scheme itself was not the fundamental problem.
	In the recent supplementary estimates—this is an estimates debate—the Department has been given £305 million, set aside to cover the costs of the debacle in the form of fines and disallowance from the EU. A recent written answer that I received used the figure of £70 million. In his response, will the Minister give us the Government's latest estimates of fines and disallowances from the EU for the years 2005 and 2006? If it is as high as the £305 million set aside, that would equate to some 8,500 police officers, which the same rural areas would very much value instead of paying fines to the EU.
	What is the up-to-date position on claims that are being reviewed? There are 20,000-odd claims for 2005 where we still do not know—and, more importantly, the individuals concerned do not know—whether people are going to get money back or be given any more.
	On this year's payments, 75 per cent. by value by the end of March is an improvement on where we have been before, but it is still woefully inadequate for the third year of this scheme. This year, the Government, or the RPA to be more precise, demonstrated that interim payments do not necessarily delay the final payment—one of the excuses given in the past. When we look back, we find that although interim payments were paid for some months this year, once the RPA pressed the button to pay the rest of the money it all went out in about three weeks. I therefore suggest that there is nothing to stop the Government producing interim payments before Christmas this year. The National Farmers Union is calling for 80 per cent., although I believe that EU rules might restrict it to 50 per cent. Certainly, I strongly believe that an interim payment needs to be made before Christmas. That would be proof that this new team of Ministers really wants to make a change for the better.
	For 20 or probably 30 years, all political parties in this House have called for reform of the CAP, and I am afraid that much of that historical rhetoric remains when we hear about the cost to the taxpayer and increased food prices. Indeed, we heard a little of it from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins). Much of that rhetoric ignores the dramatic change of 2003—the biggest change to UK agriculture policy since the introduction of guaranteed prices in 1947. That was the end of the state fixing, in one way or another, the price that farmers receive. There was a widespread belief, which was obvious in the remarks of the hon. Member for Luton, North, that cutting market support would cut food prices. It is ironic that for two of the major world commodities—grains and milk powder, where there is now little market support—there have been dramatic increases in world prices over the past 12 months, not because of market support but because good old traditional laws of supply and demand. It is odd, given the "Vision" document, that in 2003 the Government praised the mid-term review, but then said in 2005 that it needed much more reform.
	We need to understand that the CAP is as much a social policy as an economic policy. Those who founded it before we joined what was then the Common Market did so for social reasons. In negotiating the changes that we still believe are necessary, it is important that we understand where the others are coming from. The "Vision" document clearly failed to do that in substance and in process. Its publication, without any consultation, just two weeks before the budget summit, demonstrated a complete failure to understand the real intricacies of the CAP. I share many of the Committee's views. It was an ill-thought-out document, it was based on many out-of-date facts, it did not fully recognise the changes that had been made, and the Government had no idea how to make it work. Then there was the incredible hypocrisy of cutting the pillar two rural development money by some €400 million, while at the same time, as we understand from discussions in Brussels, losing the opportunity for a rebasing of the mechanism for spending that money.
	The Opposition's view is that the original reform is not sustainable. The budget pressures, including the transition arrangements for the new member states, mean that there will be a reduction in the single payment system by 2012. From the farming industry's perspective, it is vital that the industry can, sooner or later, hold its head up and stop for ever apologising for and justifying the need to have public money. It needs the ability to plan in the long term—it cannot just turn on the tap and produce more widgets or whatever. Keeping cattle, for example, requires three or four years between an animal being born and it going into production.
	We need long-term stability, and it has to be based not just on money, which seems to be the guiding factor in the "Vision" document. Much more fundamentally, it is a question of what we want from our land. On that point, I agree with the hon. Member for Luton, North: it is a matter for not just rural people, but everybody in this country. More than 70 per cent. of the land in this country is farmland, and what we do with it makes a difference to everybody. There have been great changes since the 2003 review, such as the development of biofuels and the argument about food versus fuel. There has been a drought in Australia, which was the partial cause of the shortages I referred to earlier. Rising demand from India and China, as they become more prosperous, has led to a reduction in world grain stocks, which are now at their lowest level for many decades.
	Of course, there has also been increasing recognition of the importance of climate change and its many implications. It is a question of not just agriculture's contribution to climate change, but the effects of that change on agriculture. Of all the crop land in the world, 70 per cent. is at or close to sea level, and is, therefore, very susceptible to the impact of rising sea levels due to climate change. In the UK, 57 per cent. of our grade 1 land is less that 5 m above sea level. We cannot ignore that.
	The fundamental problem with the "Vision" document, therefore, is where it states that
	"domestic production is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for food security."
	That statement should not be a surprise. At the Royal Show in 2003, DEFRA put out a statement saying
	"National food security is neither necessary nor desirable".
	That approach sits ill with the Government's view on energy, about which they are rightly much more concerned, but it also ignores the changes in world supply and demand to which I referred. It ignores the issue of the carbon footprint of food, which is distinct from the issue of food miles. It ignores the environmental degradation taking place in other countries in the world in order to produce cheap food for Britain and elsewhere in Europe.
	By the phrase "food security", we mean not self-sufficiency in the old-fashioned way but the capacity to produce a significant proportion of our food. That means retaining the necessary infrastructure and investment so that if the market demonstrates a shortage through the market signal of a rising price, as it is with grain and milk powder, what matters is that we have an industry to respond to such signals—if such an industry is left. That "if" is the Government's responsibility.
	Land has other roles apart from food production. It plays a role in producing our energy, it is the location of many of our leisure pursuits and it plays a major role in water management through flood prevention, and the retention of water in our wetlands by getting it into aquifers rather than letting it run off to sea. It plays a role in relation to the environment and biodiversity. We need a holistic approach to land management and land policies.

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am extremely grateful for the chance to debate this matter, albeit briefly. I see that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner)—who, as the former Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is responsible for much of the legislation to which I shall refer—is now leaving the Chamber.
	I represent a constituency with a stunning coastline. We have rocks, cliff faces, secluded coves, sandy beaches and a whole lot of history. There are breathtaking views and wildlife galore. On the coastline of Bridgwater and West Somerset, it is possible to marvel at all the greater wonders of nature. It is no accident that Samuel Taylor Coleridge chose the little port of Watchet in West Somerset from which to gaze out at the wider reaches of the Bristol channel and compose these famous lines: "I must go down to the sea again, to the lonely sea and the sky, And all I need is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." But if poor old Coleridge were alive today he might have found it a little more difficult, with the whole effort riddled with mindless political correctness. The result would also have been rather harder to scan: "And all I need is a five-year strategy, a report from Natural England, and a huge consultation document to steer her by." I am afraid that that does not have quite the same ring to it.
	Coleridge, as a great man, did not have all this trouble with coastal access. In truth, very few people do. It is not an issue that exercises the hearts and minds of my constituents—it never has—and I doubt that the Minister's postbag is crammed with letters about it either. Yes, there are probably a handful of super-keen explorers who want to leg it up every cliff and sniff every bit of fresh air, but the fact is that there is no overwhelming demand for unrestricted coastal access. That is because there is already plenty of access, as the Minister is well aware: 70 per cent. of the coastline of Great Britain is open, with unrestricted access owing to some form of legal right or formal agreement. Of the remainder, 10 per cent. is owned by the Ministry of Defence, which likes to let off rather large rockets and test things that go bang. I suggest that only masochists of a certain kind would want to have access to an MOD site—as someone who used to be in the MOD, I certainly would not want to walk on the wrong end of such a rocket. Therefore, discussions about extending coastline access would concern only a small proportion of coastal land.
	We must not ignore the views of the people who want complete access to everything—access to everywhere at all times. If they hold that view, that is fine. However, my argument is that we must examine and take into account the genuine extent of the pressure for change. How much real demand is there for coastal access? The available evidence suggests that there is no great demand. The Government asked Natural England to examine the case in detail, and it commissioned in-depth independent research. The Minister knows that we have been in this situation before in respect of the original proposals. The Government rightly withdrew them and proposed that there should be a consultation period, and I accept that. Most people questioned believed that there were automatic rights to coastal access. Interestingly, most people did not therefore regard access as an issue because there was thought to be such an automatic right.
	The Country Land and Business Association ordered research of its own, and 74 per cent. of those interviewed thought that there was already enough access to the coastline. I suspect that that is a lower proportion than it should be, but I am prepared to take that up with the association. However, it is a fact that trips to the English seaside have declined by almost a half within a few years, partly because of the delights of easyJet and cheap flights overseas. My point is not partisan; it is that the nature of democracy is that public pressure—the voice of the people—helps to dictate change. There is a big coastline in my constituency, and I am unconvinced that the clamour for change in this case is sufficiently loud.
	There was a small pledge in the Labour manifesto to give
	"early priority to take action to improve access to the coast".
	I do not intend to disrespect anyone, but apart from anoraks, who reads our party manifestos? That was not much of a commitment in any case; it was carefully worded and it did not promise specific legislation—it was an aspiration. It did not say that a Labour Government would fix things fast—and credit is due to the Government as that has not been done quickly—and it did not say how and when it would be fixed. The former Prime Minister and right hon. Member for Sedgefield did not go around the nation crying, "Coastal access, coastal access, coastal access." So how did this situation come about?
	Seven years ago, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was passed under the guidance of the current Minister for the South West, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). It was a political minefield at the time, and the Government recognised that dealing with the coast would probably prove to be particularly difficult because of vested interests. The organisations involved would include the MOD and nuclear power stations.
	When someone does not know what to do, they ask someone else to tell them. The Government asked Natural England to examine the arguments and make recommendations. The beauty of asking someone else to look at such a situation first is that the person who asks can say that they have done exactly what they said they would do without actually doing anything—it kicks the issue into the long grass for a long time.
	Natural England eventually concluded that coastal access was a complicated matter that might require another chunk—horrible word—of law. A problem therefore arises. Does DEFRA want a new slice of legislation on its plate? I would like to think not, and I will explain why. Where should the law fit?
	A maritime Bill has also been proposed. That is great; I have no problems with that. Presumably, that would deal with the beaches, mudflats and estuaries. Or would it? I would be fascinated to hear the Minister's opinion on that because it is an area that will impinge on our approach to the issue. I suspect that we should all be very cautious. It is a perfect approach to a political problem: if Ministers do not like the solution provided by the very people they asked to find one in the first place, the classic method of delay is to put the whole thing out for consultation again. That is what has been done. I am not saying that that is wrong, but that is what has happened.
	One produces, hey presto, a huge consultation document and seeks the opinions of the world and his wife. That is exactly what has happened in the past month. Right now, we are in the middle of an exhaustive programme of consultation and people have until 11 September to say what they think. The chances are that the world and his wife probably will not get involved for the reasons that I have already described. Most people do not describe coastal access as an issue. They think about it if it is put to them, but they do not think of it as a problem.
	However, the Minister will not be short of opinions because the consultation process deliberately included every Tom, Dick and Harry that could be thought of. I dread to think what this rather large and woolly-minded piece of buck-passing will cost us. I also have some concerns about the vast list of organisations that have been consulted by DEFRA as part of the consultation. I see that the Minister smiles wryly—I certainly did when I read the list. Why, for example, does the Bracknell district branch of Friends of the Earth get a mention? My geography is fairly bad—I failed it at A- level—but I was under the impression that Bracknell in Berkshire is landlocked. Why have all the London councils been specifically consulted? No doubt Comrade Ken likes to dangle his left toe in the sea at Southend from time to time, but so what? Why does the Minister want to hear from the National Council for Metal Detecting or the Kaolin and Ball Clay Association? Perhaps the kaolin and morphine association, if it existed, would have been more appropriate. No doubt the Outdoor Writers and Photographers Guild has a valid point of view, although I doubt that it devotes very much time to debating coastal access. Nor does the Kennel Club, yet it too is on the list of 3,000 official consultees. It is woofers to me!
	I have no desire to labour the point, but my two district councils of Somerset and Sedgemore do not get an individual mention in the list, but the Gay Outdoor Club has been consulted. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, but why is it so? The Cruising Association has also been consulted—I trust that the two are not connected.
	Consultation is a wonderful idea, but it is pointless if we go out of our way to ask every single pressure group for its input. It may generate lots of summer reading for hundreds of DEFRA civil servants, but they should have better things to do, such as sorting out the Rural Payments Agency, which we have just debated. It will certainly involve the destruction of forests of trees to produce the paper on which the submissions are made.
	Most of all, I question whether the consultation is relevant. It could become, in my humble opinion, a cop-out. Governments get elected to make decisions. This is a potential decision that has not been demanded by a vast groundswell of public opinion. In fact and in truth, the contrary is probably true. After the battles of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, does it make sense to have legislation for a national scheme when the best answer is sensible local agreements?
	I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) is in his place. Dare I say that he may be another member of the Cruising Association?
	I have been discussing these matters with responsible Ministers since 2001. I have been impressed by assurances that ministerial minds are not set on new law just for the sake of it, so I want to underline a few real local concerns that affect my bit of coastline. My coastline is open, except for one or two points, but who will maintain the paths when they have been built? Who will maintain the fences and the gates? Who will be responsible should a walker's dog leave the path and kill a sheep? If it happens at present, there is a set procedure; but if there is new legislation, I presume that it will be the responsibility of the Government.
	There is a beautiful site of special scientific interest—or SSSI—in my constituency called Steart point, and I commend a visit to the Minister; I know that many of his predecessors visited. But it would be in the middle of a coastal access point, and that debate has been had with Natural England. There is no clear way around that. Somebody needs to make a decision.
	I have a nuclear power station at Hinckley Point. The Government are debating building perhaps one or two new power stations there. It is slap-bang on the coast, for obvious reasons, and nobody—especially in these days of terrorist threats—wants to provide unrestricted access. We cannot and must not do it. There have to be exceptions, and the best thing is to let the locals make the decisions.
	There is a steep hill by Minehead called North hill. It is not cordoned off; there is no barbed wire. West Somerset district council does not actively encourage people to go climbing. But with unrestricted access, the council might have to fence off a special walkway and then would become legally liable for every tiny tumble. It is a long drop to the beach, hundreds of feet. I do not want Minehead to turn into Beachy head, thank you very much. I do not want accidents, incidents or stupid decisions.
	What do we do about estuaries? The Minister will know that I have a strangely named river that runs through Bridgwater in the heart of my constituency, the Parrett; nothing to do with "Monty Python". But if the Government allow access, one will be able to walk from Steer point into Bridgwater; it is an estuary, tidal and open. But that is not the way to have coastal access. We would have to demand access to areas that, at the moment, are flood defences, or part of a canal system, or part of a dock system, or have industrial sites on both sides.
	Unrestricted access looks good on paper. A law covering the whole coastline may seem like a simple solution, but the moment we centralise the process and put it on the statute book, we lose the one thing we need: the common sense to make decisions locally. Common sense must surely dictate the exceptions to coastal access.
	We cannot have well-meaning ramblers—I am talking about ramblers in the loosest sense—clambering right next to power stations, especially nuclear ones. We do not want people drowning themselves in dangerous tidal estuaries; I have the second-highest tidal flow in the world. We need to keep people and vulnerable birds or wildlife apart; they do not always mix. We should not disrupt the delicate cycle of agriculture either, especially after what we have heard in the previous debate.
	The answer to all these problems lies not in new law, but in sensible local agreements, brokered and managed preferably by responsible district councils or unitaries. I hope that the Minister has listened with care to my speech. I welcome him to his post and I will listen carefully to his response.